I agree with your assertion that doing nothing also have consequences. But that's the principle of noninterference, if something goes bad, people can only blame themselves.
I agree with your assertion that doing nothing also have consequences. But that's the principle of noninterference, if something goes bad, people can only blame themselves.
Why does Batman exist? He exists because Batman is exactly what young Bruce Wayne needed when Joe Chill stepped out of the shadows and aimed his gun at the Waynes. A lawyer wouldn't have saved the Waynes. A politician wouldn't have saved them. Batman would have. And that is what he has struggled his entire life to become.
Batman puts on the suit because he does care. The suit allows him to function as Batman. If he doesn't wear it, then he's not as efficient at his role.It seems he only cares as long as it involves him wearing that damn suit.
A paralyzed Joker would be just as dangerous. Through Harlequin, we have seen how the Joker can manipulate others and shape them into something to suit his needs. If he's paralyzed, the Joker would just use others to perform his crimes. Depending on how his paralysis has effected his mind, this could make the Joker's plans even more dangerous. It could very well lead to an escalation and end with a higher body count than any of the Joker's other schemes.HOWEVER, Batman could take NON-LETHAL steps to reduce the risk of the Joker killing again. Batman could easily paralyze the Joker or break his hand (preventing him from wielding a weapon) as to reduce the potential damage the Joker could personally do. Yet Batman doesn't do this. Again if we're taking all implications seriously this makes Batman look even worse.
We're discussing Superman and Batman. They exist in the DCU. They're simply fictional characters in the real world. What a fictional character does with fictional alien technology doesn't have any effect on the real world.Uh, ok here is a stipulation that was never made clear. You are talking about the DCU universe. I was under the impression and from reading others post that we were talking about our world. If it's DCU, I must admit as I am not an avid reader of comics I have very limited knowledge on this world.
Why doesn't Superman overthrow the governments and wealthy individuals or companies that he feels are standing in the way of progress? Because he's not a supervillain. That's the kind of thing a supervillain would do. If they don't agree with a government, they try to tear it down so it can be replaced with their vision of the way the world should be, usually with them in charge. Dr. Doom honestly believes the world would be a better place if he was ruling it. If Doom ruled the world there would be no wars, no crime, everyone would be fed and sickness would be treated and cured by the greatest science and technology that the world has to offer. But there wouldn't be any freedom. Humanity couldn't shape its own destiny. Society would become slaves to the ideals of a single individual.However, what I can say is that technology isn't the only things Superman can share. Knowledge is also extremely valuable. Most of the time what stops further technological development is lack of knowledge on how things work. Superman could go a long ways in sharing some of the knowledge about the nature of the universe and life that could prove invaluable to scientists. Not only that but he personally with his powers could provide invaluable assistance to scientists searching for cures.
That ignores the reality of much of the problems of the world though. Most of the time is not that humankind hasn't discovered a way to cure a disease. Most of the time people die it's because there are economic and political systems setup that don't benefit from seeing thousands of poor people get proper medical care. Thousands of people die from curable diseases like Malaria all over the world in developing countries because the elite don't benefit from seeing them cured. Plenty of people die from starvation not because the Earth isn't capable of producing enough food but because people who run economic and political systems don't find it in their interest to feed people. The world's story is basically the history of the poor and weak as oppressed people under the rule of the systems. That's the biggest enemy to society. Is not Superman the champion of the oppressed. Does he not stand for the little guy? Would he not help in this situation?
It's not Superman or Batman's role to treat the human race as their pets. They simply safeguard the world from those that would take from humanity the freedom to act and develop on their own.
I think extreme examples are valid when we're talking about a world where aliens, magic, mythical gods and talking apes exist.That's an extreme example and you know it. Superman is intelligent enough to introduce the technology slowly and methodically. He shouldn't just decide to keep it all hidden. That's the equivalent of the United States not sharing the technological advancements it has made with third-world countries. It would be morally wrong for a country to withhold life-saving cures from less developed countries who suffer from pandemics.
Saving the world doesn't make it a better place? That's a nihilistic outlook. Superman has saved the world. He has saved the universe. Without him there would be no universe. That hardly seems meaningless to me. With Superman around, there's a universe, there's a world, and there's a human race to figure out their own problems and bring about their own advances. Without Superman there's nothing and everyone is dead.A fantastical being limits himself to solving fantastical problems. In the DCU Superman is basically meaningless. Unfortunately this leads to superheroes effectively becoming useless. The world is no better and even less safe with people in tights flying around.
"Support their own agenda?" There's no need to vilify the decision to maintain the mundane elements of the DCU in order to help the reader to identify with the fictional world. I doubt there's any malicious intent to this creative decision. I would say it's more of a creative and pragmatic decision. A setting that is very fantastical requires more work to get readers to identify with it, and it makes the believability of characters and events harder to maintain. Comicbooks only have twenty-two pages per issue to tell their stories with, and so shortcuts need to be taken. One such shortcut is to use a mundane setting, so less time and effort is required for the reader to identify and understand the setting. This leaves the writer with more room to focus on their characters and story.Again the writers create these problems. It's writers trying to manipulate circumstances in the comic universe to support their own agenda, their own "justifiable morality" to support the Status Quo.
It's nothing nefarious, just some simple storytelling common sense.
I think that a self-consistant Superman (from a moralistic point of view) would be completly different from the one we read. He would probably just save the earth from destruction but not interfere in small-time crimes (like robberies). But then again, that Superman would look like an egoist, would not he ?
In Paul Dini and Alex Ross' "Superman: Peace on Earth" story, we saw Superman trying to take a stand against world hunger. For a single day he tried to feed the world, and we saw that there are things that even a Superman can't fix single-handedly. There are some problems that humanity can only solve itself. I've heard some people disliked the story, but I thought it was a great examination of the problem of world hunger and the complexities involved that can't be wrapped up with a simple use of superpowers or great force.
One value that Superman does defend is freedom. If he decided the world's governments should be dismantled and a new world order should be built to suit his own morals and beliefs, then he would be depriving the world of freedom. Even if he had the best of intensions, he would still be imposing his values upon others and taking their right to decide the fate of their own society away from the human race.
True, Superman has a very strong set of morals, and a lot of times it seems like these morals should set him on a path to cure all disease, end world hunger, stamp out corrupt governments and bring world peace. But along with those morals Superman is often depicted as having the wisdom and experience needed to understand that he alone can't achieve those goals, or if he can, then achieving them will end up doing more harm than good.
War, crime, hunger and the many other ills of our world are symptoms of a larger problem. The problem is the human race. Today we're more advanced, civilized and peaceful than we have ever been, but we're not perfect. There are still immoral elements to our population, there's still crime, greed and war. These things are the cause of most of our societies problems. And so, in order to solve those problems Superman would have to treat the cause. He would have to take complete control of humanity, becoming a dictator of the world, and exert a massive amount of control over the population in order to ensure that human nature doesn't spoil his vision of a perfect world. Humanity would be deprived of its freedom, and Superman would be an alien conqueror and a tyrant. It would no longer be human society, it would be the society Superman wants and allows to happen. Not human history, Superman's history. Not our future, but the future that an alien invader chose for us.
Meanwhile, we're seeing that many aspects of our society are improving, humans are becoming more moral, and without an alien to force us to do so. If you compare human society of today to that of two-hundred years ago, you see that morality is vastly improved. And if you compare two-hundred years ago to two-hundred years before that, things were also improving. When we examine all of human history, we see the overwhelming trend is that as society advances it becomes more moral. Sure, there are still horrible people doing terrible things to others (crime, war, etc), but it is vastly improved to what it has been in the past, and if we accept that morality has always risen in the past and will most likely continue to rise, then we have to assume that we will eventually reach a point where the world is everything Superman would wish it to be. That's without an alien conquering us and forcing such a development onto the world. Humanity can, and probably will advance to a point where the problems of today are no longer a concern. Things won't be perfect, they can never be, but they will always improve and strive towards that perfection. It might take two-hundred years, five-hundred or even a thousand years, but the world that Superman can beat into being is achievable without being conquered. And this natural development would be one humanity can achieve on its own without having their freedoms taken away.
I see it a lot like teaching a child to go from using diapers to using a toilet. Superman taking over the world is like using abuse and intimidation to force the child to be toilet trained, which will always leave the child traumatized and lead to developmental problems that will negatively effect the child for the rest of their life. Or Superman can guide humanity, teach it that there's a better way and protect it from anything that would interrupt its natural development, which is like teaching a child, guiding them and nurturing positive habits in order to make the transition less traumatic and leave them with a healthier development. Abuse and intimidation might be the quickest solution, but in the long run it isn't the best and it will leave the child miserable for decades to come.
Also, at the end, Superman stops distributing food because one of the country attacked him with missiles. But what about the others ? He could have continued delivering where he can and wait for political solutions about the agressive countries (and eventually, he could have ended fighting these dictatorial armies).
I know that it sounds like Superman should intervene in political business, but actually any dictatorship should be considered like a huge mob and Superman should be attacking them the same way he's attacking any mob. Don't you think so ?
If I follow your reasoning, Superman should just stops aliens/villains and thiefs (mostly bank robbers). By defending banks corporates, seeing how the recent crisis emerged mainly because of them, Superman just helped the bad guys. But he didn't help all the crisis' victims. I think it's impossible to do any good on a large scale without being into politic (ask any NGO). If Superman wants to really help but without suffering critics, he should give up right now. It's not about being likeable, it's about doing the right thing.
Henri Ducard: "Anger does not change the fact that your father failed to act."Why does Batman exist? He exists because Batman is exactly what young Bruce Wayne needed when Joe Chill stepped out of the shadows and aimed his gun at the Waynes. A lawyer wouldn't have saved the Waynes. A politician wouldn't have saved them. Batman would have. And that is what he has struggled his entire life to become.
Bruce Wayne: "The man had a gun!"
Henri Ducard: "Would that stop you?"
Bruce Wayne: "I've had training!"
Henri Ducard: "The training is nothing! The will is everything! The will to act!"
Without the suit, criminals aren't afraid of him.Batman puts on the suit because he does care. The suit allows him to function as Batman. If he doesn't wear it, then he's not as efficient at his role.
He protects banks because everyone uses a bank to secure their personal assets. Every time a bank is robbed, that's removing cash that is necessary for you to live off of. He doesn't single them out more than he would an ATM, a restaurant robbery, a convenience store robbery and random muggings.Originally Posted by Dreadman
Read "Peace On Earth" and "The Metropolis Mailbag".Why don't we see him helping starving people around the world ?
That makes him a villain in the eyes of the world. His job is to inspire the people to better themselves, not force his will upon them.Of course, I understand that there is a "politically correct" Superman (meant for publishing), but what would Superman really do if he was defending the values that's he supposed to defend ? Should not he turn against governments that hurt people for economical reasons only (which include sometimes the USA too) ? See where this is leading us ?
Because he would have to dismantle all the the world's military forces, in order for it to be fair. The world wouldn't accept that and he would become a dictator himself, telling the governments how to run things.Confronting a dictator in what seems to be North Korea, Superman must leave the food on the place because he cannot stay there all the time to distribute it all to everyone. Supe acknowledge the fact that it's a dictator who "built his regime on terrorism". Fine, then what are you waiting for to dismantle his army ?
Many of those nations have allies that would oppose his actions and thus could lead to more attacks on him, which would further stymie his efforts. He fails because he tries to force the situation, rather than encourage and inspire through words.Also, at the end, Superman stops distributing food because one of the country attacked him with missiles. But what about the others ? He could have continued delivering where he can and wait for political solutions about the agressive countries (and eventually, he could have ended fighting these dictatorial armies).
Even the right thing comes with a price. In "The Quest For Peace", Clark breaks his vow and goes out to eradicate all nuclear weapons. The result of this is that Lex Luthor teams with three arms dealers to stockpile both the US and the USSR, because even with the promise of peace, the two superpowers are still afraid of the other. Lex cons them into thinking that Superman may not have done as good a job as he claimed, much less that he was being completely honest. As a result, everything wound up being back to square one. Clark reluctantly accepts that the world isn't ready for forced peace, but that it must be earned through the eradication of fear. Which would come from the people wanting no more weapons of mass destruction. Likewise, the same issues were brought up in "Justice League" and "Justice League Unlimited". Clark is asked to disarm all weapons and he does. But as the team grows and builds, mistrust develops when it comes out that the League has a weapon of mass destruction that they kept hidden. And worse, that in another reality, the team went rogue and took over.It's not about being likeable, it's about doing the right thing.
Until people become mature enough to deal with their insecurities and failings, they can never evolve.
Individuals should be killed in order to prevent them from continuing to kill masses of others.
Soldiers do that all the time. Cops also, when necessary.
Sure. after Wertham and the Comics Code.They also insist on the fact that Batman is afraid of "crossing the line", going into a rampaging vengeance and end up like
It's mostly an issue of Superman pushing Earth to become New Krypton.Let's say for example that on Krypton, the cure for most of viral diseases are nanobots that can kill viruses. You can
And probably isn't much different than trying to make apes and other animals more human.
What's the right thing is still going to be subjective.It may look that way, but sometimes the real trial of strength for a hero is to do the right thing despite the fact that it
will make him unpopular. In our society, the tax inspector or the warden of a prison have a bad image despite doing a job
that is (officially at least) fair.
Even the concept of owning land in such a fashion that taxation is possible is subjective.
Well, a supporter of the common man.I agree that there is something in the fictional character as such, that makes Superman more like a symbol of purity that
none should touch (hence his very slow changing). Because of that, he does things that will not bring up controversy.
I dunno about symbol of purity. Perhaps Wertham through the Silver Age.
Modern Age he upholds authority.
None of which has anything to do with brothels. Especially if the employees aren't being harmed. Comics Code wouldn't allow a story about children being abused in brothels.
What if the people of that nation can't rebel? What if they're too demoralized to do so? What if they simply aren't capable of fighting in that kind of conflict, should Superman fight for them? Would other nations get nervous as they watch Superman take apart and change a country just to suit his own needs? What if they decide to retaliate by funding terrorist attacks on Metropolis? Can Superman stop suicide bombers while he's on the other side of the world dismantling armies and overseeing the demise and building of nations?
They poisoned the food he was delivering. He couldn't deliver the poisoned food to people, that would have killed them. Without a tanker full of food his mission couldn't continue.Also, at the end, Superman stops distributing food because one of the country attacked him with missiles. But what about the others ? He could have continued delivering where he can and wait for political solutions about the agressive countries (and eventually, he could have ended fighting these dictatorial armies).
I don't think global politics is that simple.I know that it sounds like Superman should intervene in political business, but actually any dictatorship should be considered like a huge mob and Superman should be attacking them the same way he's attacking any mob. Don't you think so ?
It's not Superman's job to do that. He's not equipped to do that. And while he's off trying to do that, the Justice League is getting taken over by Starro, before it sets its sights on taking control of half of the planet.Yes, thanks to education and political/technological. And that's what Superman should provide to every country that cannot reach it because of dictators. Basically, dictatorship is like a disease : they steal people's ressources so they fund their actions sufficiently to steal again and again. If you break that cycle, then a democracy will emerge but it's the starting point that's difficult. Some countries are just at a middle-age level of development and just need a fair start.
Also, most people don't like outsiders coming into their country and telling them how to live their lives. Rather than being seen as a savior, this might make the people view him as another oppressor, trying to push his beliefs onto them in order to replace their own beliefs.
The clerk working behind the counter or the security guard working at the bank didn't cause the financial crisis. The guy depositing cash into his account didn't cause the financial crisis. The woman setting up a new savings account for her daughter's future college fund didn't cause the financial crisis. The police that would get involved in a shoot out with a bank robber didn't cause the financial crisis. These are the people Superman is saving when he intervenes in a bank robbery. A bank robber will take those people hostage, or shoot at those cops. The people responsible for the financial crisis aren't hanging out in their own banks.If I follow your reasoning, Superman should just stops aliens/villains and thiefs (mostly bank robbers). By defending banks corporates, seeing how the recent crisis emerged mainly because of them, Superman just helped the bad guys. But he didn't help all the crisis' victims. I think it's impossible to do any good on a large scale without being into politic (ask any NGO). If Superman wants to really help but without suffering critics, he should give up right now. It's not about being likeable, it's about doing the right thing.
Look no further than what's going on in the Middle East right now. A lot of people don't like that the US got involved like they did. First with the war itself and then in the years since then.Originally Posted by Qwathings
Exactly. So, I guess Dreadman approves robbing banks because of the financial crises. Ignoring that robbing banks is illegal regardless of some bad business deals made years back.The clerk working behind the counter or the security guard working at the bank didn't cause the financial crisis. The guy depositing cash into his account didn't cause the financial crisis. The woman setting up a new savings account for her daughter's future college fund didn't cause the financial crisis. The police that would get involved in a shoot out with a bank robber didn't cause the financial crisis. These are the people Superman is saving when he intervenes in a bank robbery. A bank robber will take those people hostage, or shoot at those cops. The people responsible for the financial crisis aren't hanging out in their own banks.
He'd also be a super-douche if he didn't save ALL the children in the world.
Which is why Superman comics generally let me down. They avoid these questions because in reality Superman would create for us a super-utopia. Not that that would create a whole new slew of problems, but still...